Guinness & Anor v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

A challenge to an inspector’s listed-building decision under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 succeeds only on the statutory grounds, including legal error, procedural unfairness, irrationality or failure to take relevant matters into account. The decision letter must be read fairly, as a whole and without excessive legalism. A decision maker need not mention every material consideration, and the weight given to relevant factors is ordinarily for the decision maker. In assessing preservation of a heritage asset, an inspector may conclude that proposed works cause harm even where existing features are themselves of poor design. The absence of complete or properly scaled design information may justify refusing consent where it prevents the statutory preservation duty from being discharged.

The claimants sought to quash an inspector’s dismissal of their appeal under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The appeal concerned refusal of listed-building consent to replace Crittall windows at Widmoor Farm with timber double-glazed units. The claim challenged the inspector’s decision on grounds of breach of the statutory preservation duty, procedural unfairness, failure to consider material matters, irrationality and alleged bias concerning thermal efficiency. The central issues were whether the inspector had lawfully assessed the proposed windows’ effect on the listed building and whether the decision-making process was fair.

1. Application dismissed. The court held that the inspector’s decision disclosed no legal error, procedural unfairness, irrationality or perversity.
2. Under section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the decision maker had to have special regard to preserving the listed building, its setting and features of special architectural or historic interest. A proposal which caused no harm to the significance of the heritage asset could be treated as preserving it.
3. The inspector was entitled to assess the effect of the proposed windows on the building’s significance. The fact that the existing Crittall windows were of poor design did not prevent the proposed timber windows from causing harm through their likely bulk, visual dominance, lack of historic authenticity and suburban character. The inspector’s conclusion was not irrational.
4. The reference to unscaled photomontages was accurate. The claimants knew the case they had to meet and had chosen to submit photomontages rather than scaled drawings. There was therefore no material procedural unfairness or prejudice.
5. The inspector had considered the building as a whole, including the retained historic cast-iron casements. She was not required to mention every argument, including local examples of similar fenestration or the absence of objections. The alternative design preferred by the Council was not the proposal requiring determination.
6. The inspector had taken thermal-efficiency benefits into account. The weight given to those benefits, and to details such as glazing bars, spacers and beads, was for her. The court found no irrationality or evidence of bias. The claim was dismissed.

The claim was a first-instance statutory challenge to an inspector’s decision dated 23 June 2014. The inspector had dismissed the claimants’ appeal against the Council’s refusal of listed-building consent.